Jim Hartman: Voting ‘No’ on questions 1 and 2

Nevada voters will decide three ballot questions on the general election ballot.
Each proposes to amend the state Constitution, with Question 3 getting the most attention (the open primary/ranked choice voting initiative).
Question 1 would amend the Nevada Constitution to add new language specifically guaranteeing that equality of rights under law “shall not be denied or abridged by the State or any of its cities, counties, or other subdivisions based on race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry, or national origin.”
Existing federal and state constitutional and statutory provisions, though, already prohibit discrimination based on race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, disability, ancestry, or national origin.
The State Legislature in both 2019 and 2021 passed Senate Joint Resolution 8 to amend the Nevada Constitution with the added new language. It passed the legislature in 2021 with large bipartisan majorities in the Nevada Senate (21-3) and State Assembly (30-12).
Voter approval is the final step in the process, meaning a majority vote in favor of the question would amend the Nevada Constitution to include the new language.
Reliable polling from three firms (NV Indy Fest, Suffolk University and OH Predictive) shows broad support for Question 1. The three-poll average reflects support overwhelming opposition (68% to 19%).
While opposition might increase before Nov. 8, there’s little doubt Question 1 will pass.
Proponents argue that including the new language in the Nevada Constitution will make it more difficult to repeal, amend or overturn these rights and it will judicially “fill in the gaps” for these legal protections.
Opponents contend Question 1 provisions might be used by biological males and transgender athletes as a basis to undermine women’s sports and to challenge separate men’s and women’s restrooms and locker rooms, as examples.
While some opponent concerns are overblown, Question 1 will undoubtedly increase litigation to test the limits of the broad and legally vague constitutional provision. My preference is for law on this subject to be specific and adopted by the state legislature, cities, counties, or other subdivisions in Nevada — not interpreted and created by judges.
I’ll cast a cautionary protest vote: ‘No’ on Question 1.
Question 2 on the ballot amends the Nevada Constitution to require, beginning July, 2024, employers pay employees a minimum wage of $12 per hour, subject to increases above that amount provided by federal law or enacted by the Nevada Legislature.
It also removes from the Nevada Constitution existing provisions allowing an employer that offers certain health benefits to pay a minimum wage $1 per hour less.
Finally, it removes from the state Constitution provisions based on increases in the federal minimum wage and Consumer Price Index (CPI).
The Nevada Legislature in 2019 and 2021 adopted Assembly Joint Resolution 10 to add the new minimum wage provisions. It passed the legislature on strictly partisan votes, in the Nevada Senate (13-8) and the State Assembly (26-16).
As a proposed constitutional amendment, putting the question before voters is the final step in the process.
Polling by NV Indy Fest and Suffolk University shows strong support for Question 2. The average of their polls has Question 2 favored by 67% to 25%.
Proponents include Assembly Speaker Democrat Jason Frierson and left-liberal “Battle Born Progress.” Among opponents are the Nevada Republican Party and the Las Vegas Metro Chamber of Commerce.
While proponents argue for a politically appealing minimum wage increase being locked into the Nevada Constitution, opponents contend it’s unnecessary. The Nevada legislature already has statutory authority to increase the minimum wage, and did so in 2019.
Opponents cite evidence from the Congressional Budget Office that minimum wage mandates cost jobs, particularly among minorities, low-skill workers and teenagers.
Expect this question to pass. However, it’s bad public policy and would be incorporated into the Nevada Constitution.
 I’ll vote ‘No’ on Question 2.

E-mail Jim Hartman at lawdocman1@aol.com